I didn't respond, so we didn't get to that part of the convo yet.

Also, I answered that question. One criteria could be specified complexity. My whole point was not detecting specific design in specific situations, but that it is possible to detect design. If you want specifics look up Dembski or go to reasonstobelieve.org (the site that NR is always referencing), they have many Phd's on staff there.

I assure you that if you don't say anything stupid I will not say that it's stupid.

As for design if you are indeed prepared to answer things - see the separate thread - I don't want to derail this thread any further.

Also, you're still avoiding the other question.

The other question just misses my point in why such evidence would convince me.

I fully admit that there are people out there that do not have organized religions or maybe a adhere to a head God concept. First, I doubt that if you asked those people about God and a creator they would be bewildered. But even if God has revealed himself to us and now it is impart on us to spread that. There is a big difference between parts of the world, and the world never having any concept of God.

The reason that meeting an alien race that has no concept of God would falsify my beliefs is that if my God exists then he would not create a creation for the mere reason to just "watch", but that he is a relational God. There's more to it, but that is the premise

enough of the derail, let's keep this thread about wacky Christians trying to explain uncomfortable messages in their holy book.

"Women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be submissive, as the law also says." (1 Corinthians 14:34)

"If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched." (Mark 9:43)

"I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. " (Matt. 24:34) (I like C.S. Lewis' explanation the best)

"Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has chosen gladly to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves money belts which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near nor moth destroys. " (Luke 12:32-33)

"When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you." (Matt. 6:5-6)

Notice i kept it in the NT. Pulling stuff from the OT is too easy.

This has to be relative.

Mark 10

Jesus' Teaching about Divorce
1(A)Getting up, He went from there to the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan; crowds gathered around Him again, and, (B)according to His custom, He once more began to teach them.

2Some Pharisees came up to Jesus, testing Him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife.

3And He answered and said to them, "What did Moses command you?"

4They said, "(C)Moses permitted a man TO WRITE A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY."

5But Jesus said to them, "(D)Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.

6"But (E)from the beginning of creation, God (F)MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE.

7"(G)FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER[a],

8(H)AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh.

9"What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."

10In the house the disciples began questioning Him about this again.

11And He said to them, "(I)Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her;

12and (J)if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery."

I have never seen anything convincing to believe that this should be taken any other way then face value. There is more that goes into it then this though.

Yeah i agree Jesus is kind of conflicted on the subject. Sometimes he says there are no grounds. Sometimes he says fornication is grounds. Sometimes he says only men can initiate it. Sometimes he say both men and woman can.

In any case there are a lot of unrepentant Christian adulterers out there who got divorced from other Christians for non fornication reasons. But to them i guess Jesus's teaching on divorce seem to be more relative.


I wanted to put this in the prayer thread but...

This is another good one for this forum.

2 Thessalonians 3

6Now we command you, brethren, (J)in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you (K)keep away from every brother who leads an (L)unruly life and not according to (M)the tradition which you received from us.

It is important to note the the Greek word translated to fornication does not refer to cheating on your spouse once you are married. At that time in Jewish culture there was a very long "engagement" type process, in which leaving your spouse during that time was considered almost the same as divorce. So what Jesus is referring to is people that are in the "engagement" process and one cheats on the other. Not after they have been married.

One of the first rules of understanding the Bible is that scripture interprets scripture. In other words, look at other passages addressing the same topic and see if they are consistent, etc.

In many cases, confusing passages are simple translation problems as the original Hebrew and Greek doesn't easily translate into an English word (e.g. the English word "know" has lots of meanings).

Those who have some dislike for God or the Bible LOVE to pull out difficult verses, etc. in some attempt to say, "See, look at this verse and how terrible it is. The whole thing is a sham." It's some attempt to invalidate the Bible or religion. I guess they believe that nobody else sees the struggle in those verses and just turns a blind eye and they are the only ones to see such things.

Personally, I truly enjoy difficult Bible verses in the sense that it really prompts me to try to understand what's going on in that situation. This frequently leads to spiritual growth.

It is about both really. There was not seen as too much difference between the two, but the caveat of "allowed" divorce is in reference to this engagement period. If they were talking about fornication as we see it, after someone has gotten married, they would have used a different word. Which is why it is so important to keep the context of the culture in mind when reading scripture.

You caught me. I deleted my post because i misread what you were saying.

Could you show me a verse were Jesus said divorce to wife or husband for a Christian is allowed for non cheating reasons ?

You should also note that the major issue is not so much divorce as it is remarriage. You do not commit adultery by merely getting divorce, it is not until you get remarried.

Jesus never really gives an out for remarriage, but Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 says

Again, I think that this is a very deep subject that should not be considered lightly. I take marriage very serious and don't believe that you should get a divorce because you are bored or you don't want to compromise any longer. But that's me.

Ok how about about remarriage. Which many Christians do.

Hes referring to non Christian Christian marriages there. I mean a Christian divorcing a Christian.

How come you cant just say Jesus absolute rules on divorce are no longer followed by all and his views on it are now relative to some ?

the html bible

For God so loved the world, that he raped 1000 oxen, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

I've been toying with this for my re-write of the bible. What do you think? I feel like it gets the same message across, but without introducing child murder - something which I'd like to reserve strictly for the "bad" column when we tally things up at the end of the day, rather than having to chalk it up to "awesome and ultimate sign of love" one or more times.

Does the bible see fit to tell everyone in plain language when it is being literal and when it is being figurative? Or is that buried in the text, and dependent upon the reader to decide?

That's fantastic. Does it come from the bible? Or is it something you came up with? If it is something you came up with, isn't it kind of like putting something before god? If it is in the bible, I'd like to know where.

---

The "issue" that seems to give not the slightest worry to any of the theists itt is that when a single word can be translated as "evil" or as "calamity" and the difference is important, who gets to decide that it should be calamity in a given instance? And why? And especially considering that for the preceding 400 years it was translated as evil in that same spot (no idea what it was before then).

After all, what can a translator rely on to conclude what god's motives, feelings, desires, etc., are? Haven't we established that god is not subject to the morals he prescribes to humans? Haven't we established that (sometimes) he works in mysterious ways?

I think there are some fundamental problems with believing and/or interpreting a revealed or holy book. Words change, cultures change, meanings change. I doubt very much it is possible to know what the stories in the bible meant to the people who first recorded them, much less told them.

I cannot do this subject justice; maybe I can find something published on the topic. If nothing else, the "new atheists" are great at bringing out ideas that have heretofore been somewhat buried, or possibly not discussed at all.

As to your first statement, without there is no reason that a Christian should divorce and remarry. Now, again I don't really believe that this is a hard and fast rule and would want to look at every situation individually.

As to your second statement, I wholeheartedly agree. I am sorry that you thought that I was trying to say otherwise.

At face value many things are misinterpreted because the reader is looking at it as a 21st Century American reading it in English. Often times that is on purpose, Pletho (although I think he is a gimmick, he encompasses a representation of all extreme beliefs) would be a good example. That is why he does not like any other translation then the KJV, which has some pretty obvious flaws including passages that are known to not be in the original text that other translations have taken out.

If you look at each book in the style that it was written in the original language and in the original cultural context, then there is not much of an issue and it is more clear. Now that is not to say that there cannot be different interpretations.

I think that it is also important to look at the doctrine and the history of the doctrine. The "no contraception" doctrine has strong roots at a time where the RC Church wanted to "boost" numbers. In other words, was there an ulterior motive for the interpretation in question.

I would also want to add that in certain circumstances there would be reasons why the bible would be somewhat vague. Not everything needs to be known by us, and if we knew certain things it might detract us from what we are called to do. Also, certain people feel comfort in different things. My father for example needs to see more structure to God, and thus his interpretations seem to gear towards that mind set (lucky huh), me on the other hand, I do not need to have that sort of structure, so my interpretation of God's nature leans more towards a less structural character.

You also have to ask yourself, what is "plain language"? Is this even possible given our current state? Is there anyway that you could explain calculus to a 2 year old that would make him understand?

Jib,

Here is the main problem. If we take a random seeker who wants to be Christian, and expose him to 50 different mainstream interpretations, the answer to "How do I receive salvation?" (which is probably one of the most important question for most, yes?) will range from:

Just love your neighbor and treat everyone good, and you will have salvation (the Prax school of theology)

to

Believe that Jesus was the Christ, etc, etc, and thats about it.

to

Believe that Jesus was the Christ, etc, etc, and sell all your possessions and help the poor or become a missionary (the sheeps vs goats interpertation)

to

Believe that Jesus was the Christ, etc, etc, call homosexuals "****", treat non-believers with disdain, etc, etc.

to even

Believe that Jesus was the Christ, etc, etc, and stone all non-believers.

Any of these interpretations are perfectly valid, and you can't really fault someone for reaching a different interpretation than you since it was your God's will for His own word to be misinterpreted ten thousand different ways.

So, if you play the "better safe than sorry" card, a person who wants to be a Christian, should stone adulterers, refrain from sex with their wife when she is menstruating, disallow women from speaking in church, and cut off their right arm if they masturbate with it.

I disagree with your premise.

If you examine each book in its historical context, including all available translations, fragments, etc., and couple that with all that we have learned about psychology, sociology, neurology, physiology, evolution, and so on, then it is plain that there is no compelling reason to think that any miraculous or extraordinary claim in any of the stories should be considered as anything other than myth, morality plays, little white lies, fantastic story telling, etc., and that does not include any serious implication of actual miracles or revelation of gods.

Can you be more specific? What kinds of things do you rely on to determine if something is "supposed" to be taken literally or not? Or if you defer to other experts, what kinds of things do they use?

I imagine those small questions are actually asking a lot, but I'm curious, and I'm not the one making the claim, so I'm hoping you will cough up something...

FYP. I cannot take you seriously when you throw out assertions like this and expect me to agree with you. Also, none of this has to do with my post about interpretations.

Based on your current upbringing, society and values, then yes, it is a legitimate conclusion to draw from reading that. Does that mean it's eternal though?

Consider what you would think growing up in a different society -- maybe 2000 years from now -- where marriage and divorce were as accepted as eating shellfish is today. Would you draw the same conclusion and be some sort of "fundamentalist", or would you join the ranks of society and now consider Batair's quote to be figurative/allegorical instead?

Serious serious questions. This post contains the very reasons why I cannot fathom the Bible being anything but relative to the reader.

I disagree that that most of these are "perfectly valid". What constitutes "perfectly valid?"

Would you say that anyone's interpretation of any sentence is "perfectly valid?"

I would draw the same conclusion, because the passages should still be interpreted in the context of 1st century Jewish culture. So it does not matter what my current situation is. And for the record, remarriage is perfectly acceptable in today's society, so how do you explain my interpretation?

no. "anyone's" interpretation of "any" sentence is not necessarily "perfectly valid".

The problem is, there are ... say, 100k statements/sentences in the bible. Each one has 1-3 different valid interpretations.

That means any set of interpretations is perfectly valid.

and if you want, feel free to show that any of my interpretation of the path to salvation is not perfectly valid and supported by scripture.

Ouch, really? If you were raised, since birth, to believe that divorce and remarriage happen to couples in your community or family every week and it's perfectly normal for everyone, you would still reach 1st century Jewish conclusions on your own? Really??